Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gibson v. Greilick

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma

July 31, 2019

CHRISTOPHER BRYANT GIBSON, Petitioner,
v.
BRADLEY GREILICK, Respondent.

          ORDER

          SCOTT L. PALK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 21] issued by United States Magistrate Judge Bernard M. Jones upon referral of this matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). Judge Jones recommends granting Respondent's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 16] and denying Petitioner's request for habeas relief. Petitioner has filed an Objection [Doc. No. 24] and has also filed a Motion [Doc. No. 22] requesting leave to amend his response to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss. [Doc. No. 11]. Respondent has filed a Response in Opposition [Doc. No. 23] and opposes Petitioner's request for leave to amend. The Court must now make a de novo determination of the portions of the Report to which objection is made, and may accept, reject or modify the recommended decision in whole or in part. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

         I. Background

         Petitioner seeks habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and challenges the execution of his sentence. He requests the expungement of a prison disciplinary conviction and restoration of good time credits taken as a result of the conviction. As the Magistrate Judge set forth, Petitioner raises the following grounds for relief, alleging violations of his due process rights:

Grounds One and Two: Petitioner was in need of emergency mental health treatment at the time of the incident giving rise to his disciplinary conviction;
Ground Three: the investigating officer refused to investigate Petitioner's claim that he was in need of mental health treatment;
Ground Four: prison officials failed to provide Petitioner with a written copy of the Unit Disciplinary Committee (UDC) report;
Ground Five: the incident report failed to include various details;
Ground Six: Petitioner is actually innocent of the conviction because a food slot is not a security device under BOP Code 208.

See R&R at 1-2; see also Petition, ¶ 13.

         II. Petitioner's Objections

         In his objection, Petitioner refers to the Petition and his citation to certain regulations governing prison disciplinary proceedings by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). Specifically, Petitioner cites 28 C.F.R. § 541.5 through 541.8. He claims that prison officials disregarded the procedures required by these regulations in violation of his due process rights. Obj. at 1. He also claims his due process rights were violated when prison staff “refused to provide him with requested documentary evidence to support his defense” at his prison disciplinary proceeding. Id. at 2.

         Petitioner further claims the Magistrate Judge misconstrued his claim regarding competency by “suggesting he was incompetent, both at the time of the incident and during the disciplinary hearing[.]” Id. Petitioner states that he “never claimed he was incompetent during the disciplinary proceedings” and that “he only claims incompetence during the alleged incident.” Id. He further argues the record does not establish he received a psychological review after the incident and that without such, he was denied due process. Id.

         Finally, Petitioner challenges the Magistrate Judge's finding that he is not constitutionally entitled to a UDC review. He cites 28 U.S.C. § 541.7 as demonstrating his due process right to a written copy of the UDC report. Id. at 3. He further argues that his due process rights were violated because he was not able to present the UDC report at his disciplinary hearing.[1]

         III. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.